The “fundamental question” Singaporeans need to ask about the elected presidency system is whether they want the President to have the “real power” to say no to the Government on certain issues, says Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam.

SINGAPORE: The “fundamental question” Singaporeans need to ask about the elected presidency system is whether they want the President to have the “real power” to say no to the Government on certain issues, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam.

Mr Shanmugam was speaking on the sidelines of a dialogue session on Thursday (Sep 8) with 600 grassroots leaders from the North West District on the proposed changes to the elected presidency.

Advertisement

“The President doesn’t have many powers, but he has two powers. One, to say no to certain appointments, and two, to say no to the Government when the Government wants to take money that the Government didn’t make,” he said.

“Do you or do you not want to give that power, real power, to the President? We as Singaporeans have to ask that question. If they do, then there is no choice. The President has to be elected.”

At a separate dialogue session on the elected presidency, attended by about 40 participants from the Chinese business community, Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo said more can be done to educate Singaporeans on the role and responsibilities of the President.

“While everyone knows that they get an opportunity to exercise a vote, not everyone is so clear about the role of the President and this is in fact an exercise that has brought out the various aspects of the presidency – why there needs to be an election, why there should be eligibility criteria and also in what way the Council of Presidential Advisors plays a role,” she said.

Advertisement

Advertisement

“So I think the whole exercise has enabled more of our citizens to appreciate the important role that the President plays and the necessity for us to adjust the scheme in order to be more reflective of its requirements, especially the complex decision making that the President is required to undertake.”

ELECTED OR APPOINTED PRESIDENT?

At the dialogue session with Mr Shanmugam, many in the audience raised their hands in agreement when asked if the President should continue to be elected.

Mr Shanmugam also asked the audience whether they would be unhappy if their right to vote for the President is taken away. An overwhelming majority raised their hands.

In a report released on Wednesday, the Constitutional Commission put forward the possibility of separating the ceremonial role of the President while placing custodial responsibilities into the hands of an appointed body of experts. Under such a system, the President could be appointed by Parliament and carry out duties as a “symbolic unifying figure”.

The Government has yet to formally respond to the Commission’s recommendations. But Mr Shanmugam said it is “unlikely” that it will do away with an elected presidency.

Quoting former prime ministers Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong, as well as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Mr Shanmugam said the President “can only have moral authority to say no to the elected government, if the President himself is elected”.

He also pointed out that the Commission recognised this. “If a person or a body is not elected, then they cannot really say no and block the government. Because they’re unelected, (they can) at best only delay, and Parliament can still override,” Mr Shanmugam added.

If the President is elected, then there should be a set of criteria to ensure that he is the right man for the job. And the criteria has to be reviewed to reflect the changing economy and the status of the national reserves, he said.

CONCERNS ON MINORITY REPRESENTATION

There was also some uncertainty as to whether there needs to be a minority president after some time.

In its report on Wednesday, the Commission had proposed a mechanism by which a reserved election would be triggered if no candidate from a particular racial group has held the office of President for 30 years or more.

Mr Shanmugam noted the concerns that the proposed reserved elections for a particular race that has not had a representing president after five terms would affect meritocracy. But he pointed out that the Commission has made clear that regardless of race, all presidential candidates “have to fulfil the same criteria, so there is no question of lowering the criteria for a particular race”.

One participant at the dialogue session with Mrs Teo questioned if a five-term cycle, equivalent to 30 years, would be too long.

“Besides having veto powers, most importantly the President is a symbol of racial harmony,” said Mr Desmond Peh, chairman and CEO of Just Education, who suggested shortening the gap to perhaps a three-term cycle instead.

In response, Mrs Teo said she was “glad” that this suggestion was brought up and that it reflected a very accepting attitude towards the need for minority representation. But she added that there is “no right or wrong” in this regard and was a judgment call made by the Commission.

“We made a guess as to why the Commission proposed five terms. It broadly allows us to have a distribution of the races amongst the presidents that’s broadly reflective of our population make-up,” explained Mrs Teo.

Another question raised was if citizens would feel “disincentivised” to vote in an election reserved for a minority race.

In a poll of the audience, Mrs Teo asked if any would choose to spoil their vote in a reserved election. None raised their hands.

“S$100M IN 1991 VERY DIFFERENT FROM S$100M IN 2015”

Some also raised concerns about the recommended raise in threshold. Currently, a person who has been chairman or CEO of a company with a paid-up capital of at least S$100 million would qualify to stand in the Presidential Election. But the Commission has recommended that the threshold be raised to S$500 million in shareholders’ equity.

Several people at the dialogue session with Mr Shanmugam were concerned whether this would further shrink the pool of potential candidates from the private sector.

One member of the audience asked why there needs to be such a big increase, instead of a gradual one, and whether that will truly ensure the elected President will have good moral values, integrity and a love for Singapore - things that are the most important to her as a citizen.

To this, Mr Shanmugam said the test of character will be left to the voters who will have to assess the presidential candidates based on their track record.

“That is very difficult to assess. The only things we can do in law is to set out some objective criteria,” he said. “You believe that certain criteria was necessary in 1991. Do you believe that a person who runs the same sort of company today – S$100 million in 1991 is very different from S$100 million in 2015 – do you think that person has that kind of experience to make decisions in an economy which is now very, very different?”

A participant at Mrs Teo’s dialogue session also asked why having experience dealing with finances was key to the eligibility criteria of a President.

Mrs Teo said she understood the concern that the more stringent criteria might make it more difficult for those from minority races to stand as candidates, but added if the adjustment is not made the criteria would not reflect how the economy has grown.

“At least we can be assured that the bar is not being lowered for any race. If I were to ask you if because of this consideration for minorities, we don’t use S$500 million, but S$100 million instead. Do you think citizens would be able to accept this?” said Mrs Teo.

The Government is expected to detail its position on the Commission’s report in a White Paper on Sep 15.